At 07:46 PM 12/6/2009, Jones Beene wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner
> I think you need to read the SPAWAR articles. SPAWAR detected triple
tracks deep the CR-39. They show the photos.
Yes, my original post cited both the article and the image of triple tracks-
which I am merely hypothesizing comes from something other than what the
authors ascribe them to. I have read articles by them going back to the mid
nineties where they find a tiny amount of tritium, but AFAIK only recently
did they make this dreadfully incorrect leap of faith to include such a rare
reaction involving carbon fission. As best I can tell, they are apparently
unaware of the low cross-section problem.
Jones, you aren't paying attention. Please do. "Carbon fission" isn't
postulated as part of the reaction, nor are neutrons or tritium
postulated as having anything to do with the primary reaction.
The carbon fission they mention is not a rare reaction, it is a
relatively common one when energetic neutrons are present, and the
triple-track that is the evidence of it -- direct evidence, there
*are* triple tracks, appearing to be indentical in energy as far as
one can tell, and visibly originating at a single point within the
CR-39, with no charged particle initiating that reaction. That's just
about got to be an energetic neutron.
And if there is fusion or other energetic nuclear reaction taking
place in the palladium deuteride, we would expect a certain, possibly
low, incidence of secondary reactions. Like D-T fusion, but that's
only one possible example. D-T fusion would be rare, to be sure,
because of nothing else than the rarity of tritium in the solution.
Raise the tritium level, if tritium is involved with the neutron
generation, the level of neutrons might go up. If they don't, then
tritium is probably not the source, my guess is where the analysis would fall.
There is no cross-section problem. The level of knock-on protons,
found from the abundance of single tracks on the back side of the
CR-39, is such that the discovered level of triple-tracks indicating
the well-known fission of C12 from the impact of an energetic neutron
is reasonable, AFAIK. The protons also show the neutrons, except, of
course, that protons themselves are as clearly and dramatically
diagnostic of neutrons, and give less indication of the neutron
energy, it takes a certain minimum energy to cause the C12 breakup.
> Such triple tracks in CR-39 are common when high energy neutrons are
present.
Nonsense, if you are talking about a small flux of fast neutrons ... or else
... to be diplomatic, let me change that to: can you please provide a
citation for this being a "common" occurrence with a very low flux of fast
neutrons.
They are known to occur with high frequency with high flux, so why
not low frequency with low flux? Look, the peer reviewers at one very
high-level publication, Naturwissenschaften, passed this paper, and
Rothwell, who has worked with these reviewers, claims they are *very*
knowledgeable about the field. Are triple tracks strongly indicative
of energetic neutrons or not?
The terms "very low" and "common" are being juxtaposed here, and, in
this usage, are obviously contradictory. The incidence of triple
tracks is very low in the SPAWAR reports, on the order of 10 tracks
per 2 square centimeters per experiment, which is several weeks.
Evidence of knock-on protons is much higher, looks to me like
hundreds of tracks or more, maybe thousands, I don't recall if they
give figures. These are on the back side, and I believe that these
chips are 1/16 of an inch thick, or over 1500 microns away from the
cathode. The vast majority of neutrons are not being detected, and
most that do show an observable effect are through single tracks,
presumably from knock-on protons.
So ... there are papers that I can't read that do characterize the
numbers and kinds of tracks for various energies of neutrons. What's
clear from what I can see is that triple tracks are "commonly"
considered to be indicative of energetic neutrons, I found quite a
few references that predate the SPAWAR report. The flux is not "very
low," compared to the numbers of triple tracks, which *are* very low.
I have not done the math, but the neutron flux in terms of overall
emission could be, roughly, two per hour detected on the chip with a
proton (which is most of them). Which, if the neutrons are emitted in
all directions, would indicate maybe 12 per hour total if the
detection layer were a sphere. But that layer only detects a very
small fraction of the neutrons that pass through it, I'd be
astonished if 1% of them result in a single track. So maybe we have
1200 per hour, or 20 per minute, one every three seconds. That's a
low flux, for sure, but quite enough to compare with the very few
triple tracks seen. From other evidence, the neutrons probably occur
in bursts, with a much higher flux for a very short time.
As best I can tell from what is available online, only a massively large
flux of fast neutrons would leave any detectable triple tracks in adjacent
film.
And where do you get that idea? "Any detectable" is a pretty low
number if we are integrating over three weeks! And the detection is
not in "adjacent film," exactly. You can't see triple tracks, really,
on the layer next to the cathode, you can only see them as such where
they emerge from the film. The back side, which is 1500 microns away
in the wet configuration.
I think that if you are going to critique the SPAWAR report based on
some idea of the rarity of triple tracks, you'll have to get very
specific with the numbers, otherwise you are just waving your hands.
What you will really need to do is compare the triple tracks with the
apparent proton tracks, or figure out how to explain relatively high
track density on the *other side* of the CR-39. Especially with a
gold cathode. Doesn't happen with silver at all, and at much lower
levels with platinum.
This is due to the extremely low cross-section, and the extremely high
penetrating power of fast neutrons.
Yes, they are quite penetrating. But they cause a certain level of
knock-on protons, simple proton recoil from collisions, and they
cause a certain level of triple tracks, and it appears that this has
been characterized quantitatively with respect to proton energies for
CR-39. If you think that the SPAWAR data is out of whack with that,
and you are the first to notice it, by all means, get specific.
A flux of fast neutrons, sufficient to
cause even one triple track in a single sub-mm layer of film - would seem to
be most undesirable - even deadly.
Again, numbers? One triple track per three days, say? What is the
ratio? I don't have the data. Do you? If you don't have the data,
then how can you confidently assert this?
The infamous "Dead Graduate Student Problem" came to exemplify what hot
fusion practitioners thought about P&F's original announcement, and yet even
so- that was with no suspected tritium being involved (in 1989).
This actually has nothing to do with this.
If D+D
fusion generated heat, so the argument went -- the neutron flux should have
killed the Grad Student operating the cell... but later - the
rationalization was found that it was full helium fusion, and with very few
neutrons, so Grad Students are safe ...
Actually, apparently no neutrons from the "full helium fusion" --
which it probably isn't, as far as actual pathway. It simply has that *result*.
...but fast forward and now we find that the SPAWAR team wants to return to
that scenario made even worse via tritium ... and surely D+T fusion should
have nailed everyone in the entire SPAWAR lab, if even a few triple tracks
were seen.
No, the reaction is proposed only as a rare secondary reaction, not
as the cause of the excess heat. This reaction would produce no
measurable excess heat, the levels are way, way too low. Please
acknowledge this, this is beginning to feel like talking to a wall poster.
Of course, here we are not talking about excess heat - merely the
number of triple tracks observed (about 10 per every three day run it would
seem), and then calculating back from cross-section of carbon for fast
neutrons to the flux which should have been required to produce them.
Okay, show us the math!
> It is a logical conclusion on their part that their co-deposition
experiment created enough T that DT reactions were detected.
No, that doesn't necessarily follow. It could be the natural
occurrence of tritium.
Horace, it could be logical that a few thousand DT reactions occurred, since
there was a tiny amount of tritium. What is not logical is that any of the
fast neutron would be stopped by carbon in a single layer of film.
How thick the layer and how far from the surface such that the triple
tracks are detected? Again, have you done the math or is this seat of
the pants? We are going to see the triple tracks from layer that is
about as thick as the expected travel distance for alpha particles of
the appropriate energy in CR-39. I don't have those number, but it
also depends, as well, on the etch distance, the deeper the etch, the
more triple-tracks are detected, but then at some etch depth the
upper ones become obscure, there are papers on this....
The problem that SPAWAR seems to dodge is statistical. They claim there are
only a few thousand tritium atoms, so that even if there is a complete
fusion of it all with deuterium, there are way too few fast neutrons; since
the probability of any of them being stopped in a single layer of CR-39 by a
carbon atom is beyond comprehension in a statistical sense, even in hundreds
of years.
I've seen no numerical claims from them for the number of tritium
atoms and a few thousand seems quite low to me. Plus D-T fusion is
only one possibility, they only mention it as a speculation, and it's
hard to imagine why the number of neutrons would skyrocket with a
gold cathode, but apparently it does. Don't attack the triple tracks
as evidence of neutrons, but consider it as possible evidence that
tritium isn't involved.
I have not looked for possible reactions, and I'll leave that to
someone else, but what if there is a fusion reaction happening with
gold? What happens if you hit gold with hot alphas? Can you get some
neutrons? Or maybe the gold influences the physical arrangement of
the deuterium, being not penetrable by it, lots of possibilities and
the chance that we'll figure it out by speculation is very low.
But I don't consider neutrons speculative at this point,
triple-tracks are highly likely to indicate energetic neutrons. So
... SPAWAR has done some work on the energies involved, as I recall.
What detection efficiency is involved? What is the normal ratio, with
neutrons of that energy, between proton tracks and triple tracks? I
don't see any consideration of this at all.
Plug in your own numbers. No, I have not done so, and am no expert - but
(self-appointed) expert in news groups say this claim is impossible.
Have any of them done the math?
What I'm saying is that there is no known or postulated reaction to
explain the triple-tracks, and that particular pattern is known to
indicate energetic neutrons, so the default hypothesis is that they
are neutrons. To imply from that the overall flux shouldn't be
terribly difficult, and I should review the SPAWAR articles to see
exactly what they have said on it.
If there are newsgroup posts making claims about impossibility, are
they doing so with shallow arguments such as what you have presented,
or do they show the math? Can you point out such posts, I'm not sure
I'd want to slog through piles of search results, whereas presumably
you could find and cite what you have seen? Were you looking for the
actual calculations, as I'm asserting should be necessary, or were
you merely impressed by the *idea* of the argument, assuming that the
math would work out.
But triple-tracks still equals neutrons, as a default. If that leads
to impossibilities, well, there is definitely a problem. I just
haven't seen any evidence of that at all, not here.
Even
the ones who are open minded about LENR will probably opine that the
cross-section is way, way too low for 3 triple tracks per day without a huge
and deadly flux. One remark claims that the SPAWAR authors appear to be
blithely unaware of the cross-section problem. Have you seen where they have
addressed it?
Given that I've been reading about this for almost a year, and I
hadn't encountered the specific objection, it wouldn't surprise me to
find they haven't answered an obscure objection. If this were a
cogent objection, I'd think that a letter to Naturwissenschaften
would be in order, or at least some paper specifically detailing it.
There is a specific paper I'd like to see the contents of, I asked
about it in a previous post today. It may cover the frequency issue.
What level of triple tracks is associated with what flux of neutrons
at what energy? That can be measured, and I believe it has. So are
the objections based on those measurements? Do they cite them? Or is
it just blowing smoke, speculation?
IOW, the bottom line seems to be that it would require such a high flux of
fast neutrons, that there would be extremely dangerous consequences for the
experimenters, who seem perfectly healthy.
I think you have said this about a half-dozen times now, without
providing any more evidence that it's true besides a vague reference
to newsgroups.
Unless there is something more to the story. What I now surmise is that:
1) They created bona fide LENR reactions, with some tritium
No. Same problem. You are claiming that the number of reported triple
tracks requires a deadly flux of energetic neutrons. That has
*nothing* to do with the source of the neutrons.
2) they found a number of 'triple tracks' in a ratio of about 1:1000 with
the number of tritium atoms available
That is speculation, I believe, and seems quite incorrect to me in
any case. I don't think they make any claim at all about the number
of tritium atoms available, plus, quite likely, CF does generate some
level of tritium, much more than the numbers you are claiming. 1:1000
would indicate 10,000 tritium atoms, taking what you say literally.
That is very, very little, if I'm correct, it would be very difficult
to detect at all, if it could be detected at all. Tritium is
generated at generally detectable levels. Low, to be sure, but not THAT low.
3) they looked for any possible explanation.
Something wrong with that?
4) they chose a preposterously wrong explanation - pretty much by default,
since apparently it was the only one that they could fit into the
circumstances of having found tritium and triple tracks together.
You are focusing on the tritium, which is a detail to possibly
explain tritium flux, and it can't be ruled out yet.
The arguments you make about triple tracks and deadly flux have
nothing to do with tritium, there could be any kind of neutron source
at all involved: a given flux of neutrons at a given energy would
produce a given incidence of triple tracks in CR-39 etched under
given conditions.
What they are explaining with the tritium speculation -- that is
exactly what it is -- is a possible source of neutrons. If there are
so many neutrons, one could then infer that there are so many tritium
atoms at least, and quite likely many more, and that's all
reasonable. But how many neutrons are we talking about?
We have two pieces of evidence: the number of triple tracks and the
number of proton tracks in places where only neutrons could have
caused them. Which is the same place where the triple tracks are found.
(Of course, you could postulate some exotic particle or unknown
reaction, but I haven't seen a reason to do that. Why postulate some
unknown reaction when there is a known one, unless, indeed, the
numbers don't work. Do the numbers work? I'd assume that SPAWAR
looked at those numbers, but if they didn't, it's pretty unlikely
this would escape the peer reviewers and all those who read those
papers who might comment for publication. The objection can't be
dismissed entirely, if it's based on actual calculations from known
values. But you haven't reported anything like that, so far it sounds
like pure speculation and, as I wrote, hand waving. Show the source
for the claim you are making, some reason to take this seriously, I'd
be happy to look at it.)
